Re: [boost] [function] new implementation

Subject: Re: [boost] [function] new implementation
From: Domagoj Saric (dsaritz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-08 19:32:03

"Lars Viklund" <zao_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:20101105230105.GA24771_at_hatchepsut.acc.umu.se...
> r66407 has the correct pass/failed-as-expected results on VisualAge.
> All three test suites of program_options, signals and signals2 pass.
>
> I ran the same three suites on Sun as well, just to cover all bases.
>
> On 5.10, signals and signals2 pass completely, except for the usual
> spurious mutex_test failure as indicated in the regression matrix.
>
> program_options on 5.9 fails to compile parsers.o in a similar manner to
> the one reported in the regular trunk test matrix, so it's most probably
> not a Function fault (log attached).
>
> Hooray!

Great! :-)

If you are interested and have a project with relatively significant 
boost::function usage I'd love to hear your results...the same advice/hints 
I gave to Hartmut apply...

Additionally, if you would like to squeeze a little extra out of your 
compilers you might want to provide the appropriate sections in the 
detail/platform_specifics.hpp file ;)

ps. do you perhaps know where is the list of compilers officially supported 
by Boost (I know I've seen it but can't remember the location)..?

-- 
"What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual
devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than
from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate."
Neil Postman